Henner Hollert, the editor-in-chief of Environmental Sciences Europe, which republished the study, told Nature that there was no peer review of the second paper “because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.” Rather, the editors who reviewed the paper only checked to make sure there was “no change in the scientific content,” Nature reported.

According to the blog Retraction Watch, “that makes it all the more mystifying why [study leader Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France] told us, in press materials and in a follow-up email, that the republished paper was peer-reviewed.”